The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.

I was just alerted (not by the actual / anonymous authors themselves) to the fact that a new KING KONG MAN debunking effort has been published on Youtube - by YT user "KurtsFilmeVideo". A youtube commenter ('DavidGPeters') wrote the below message under my FAKE PENTAGON SMOKE video today:

As you can see, "KurtsFilmeVideo" has the height of what we may call "the window-&-spandrel fairing" at 3,70m (while I / my sources had them at a slightly shorter 3,52m - but as you will see, this discrepancy is of marginal importance).

The funniest thing is that - in order to further / corroborate their contention, "KurtsFilmeVideo" also links to the below image (which certainly isn't meant to have been shot from ground level) and calls it "Real lean angle of a 'King Kong Man". By this ("Real lean angle") I suppose it is implied that what we see in this image doesn't 'suffer' from the same 'heavy-perspective-distortion-optical-phenomena' submitted in the above, curious graphics:

I will now ask you to open the original file of the above image - and enlarge the image on your screen - until the head of the circled man reaches approx 1cm in height. You should then have (on your screen) the height of "the window-&-spandrel fairing" at approx 7cm. (Note: your screen's aspect ratio doesn't matter much, since we are only going to make vertical measurements of two parallel objects in the image). As you can easily calculate, this means that it would take no more than 7 heads of that man to stretch from top-to-toe of the "the window-&-spandrel fairing" (approx 3,52m - or 3,70m, according to "KurtsFilmeVideo's" data).

Now, human anatomy tells us that an average man is approx "7,5 heads tall":

If the head measurement doesn't satisfy you for accuracy, try estimating the location / pixel area of the leaning man's navel. On your screen, it should be approx 3cm down from the top of his head. To estimate the man's total height (whose legs we cannot see), you would need to add 4,5cm to your 3 centimeters. That adds up to 7,5cm - i.e. 0,5cm more than the 7cm "window-&-spandrel fairing".

This means - quite simply - that the leaning man (whom I will keep calling the "KING KONG MAN") must be roughly as tall as "the window-&-spandrel fairing" (or taller) - or in any case, the man must be more than 3m (or 10ft) tall. This is, I think we can all agree, just an impossible height for a human being.

I agree. Even if his neck were so impressive that it could reach over his collarbone and shoulder so impressively to face "the camera" while his torso had somehow been in a foreshortened orientation, it would still not explain the size of his body, nor how and why he is choosing this particular configuration. Crawling out of the building like this is stupid and unbelievable in the first place.

Clearly, this "photo" is from the simulation of a non-existing camera in order to stretch the limits of credulity.

I also find this section very awkward.

I understand the spacers between windows are probably no wider than a foot and a half, or two feet, but is this really the best possible way for someone to consider life and death? Just hanging there waiting for a gust of surely powerful wind to choose for them as they accidentally let go of their tenuous grip?

Just think about how the dark-skinned sim must be chilling, supposedly parsing out a life or death decision. He decided to lean at nearly a forty five degree angle outside the window with his only possible support at such an angle his unseen fingertips around the back of a slick, metallic, wind-blown surface? That guy must have a lot of faith in his other arm, which must be holding really tightly to — what? — a sconce? A picture frame? And to make matters even more confusing and dire, his light-skinned colleague below decided to peek out his head through the barely 3-foot opening to get his own looksee of happenings? Did he supposedly alert his "disaster buddy" that his towering Lurch-like frame would be doing its fucking around at the man's shoulder level, just so the leaning fellows are trapped together without shouting communication at one another over the noise?

Not to attempt to move a muscle while precariously allowing fate to take its course? No going back inside the window? Eager to join his fate? White man always copying the Black man and taking credit!

Do any of these people make any sense, beyond the occasionally curious and brief top of the head? Did nobody think to wet a rag and run down the stairwells, which by law must be bordered by fire doors? They're just going to choose between slow consumption in an office or hanging loosely about like they're on a jungle gym? The entire picture is absurd. We forget how absurd it is because the unbelievability of their curiosity and their implausible lack of survival instinct in such a supposedly dramatic situation is masked by our own passive, safe-at-home curiosity. It's a subtle mind trick.

"Here's looking at you." Peekaboo. Here we are. Now go back to figuring out how the terrorists got us!

We have been one of the global leaders in VFX for over 25 years and counting, with industry-leading facilities in London, Vancouver, Montréal, Los Angeles, New York, Amsterdam, Bangalore and Mexico City.

Renowned for adding visual wonder and creative expertise to the advertising, film and entertainment industries, some of our most famous projects include blockbuster movies such as Godzilla, the Harry Potter franchise, X-Men, Prometheus and Life of Pi, and famous advertising campaigns for brands such as Samsung, Coca Cola, Sony, Three Mobile and Channel 4. ...

I find it a bit curious that not ONE single comment was to be found under that YT video - posted back in July 14, 2011 !

So I couldn't resist to be the very first commenter there... Hope it won't get removed (as oft happens to my YT comments....) - anyways, here it is :

simonshack wrote:FYI: All of the existing 9/11 imagery depicting "people falling from the WTC towers" (including each and everyone of the clips featured in this compilation posted by YT user "untitledfall") has been thoroughly analyzed - one by one - for the last five years or so, under every conceivable aspect. The inescapable conclusion of this extensive and methodical independent research is that ALL - bar none - of these images were computer-generated (and cannot therefore possibly be authentic photographic - videographic representations captured by real cameras).

7 million views and no comments?? This is virtually impossible. Either this is a fake stat or this "unitedfall" character deletes all comments systematically. Yours was deleted, Simon. I left another one without links, just to see if that's what triggered it. Let's see how long mine lasts...

ancoranonhocapito2 hours ago

Oh, wake up already. THIS IS A DIGITAL CREATION. THE TOWERS WERE EMPTY. NOBODY DIED ON 9/11.

...if these were real people, it would actually be quite offensive and disrespectful to broadcast over and over the last tragic moments of their lives... Real families, real relatives, would have made this clear long ago.However, being these just digital instruments of propaganda, without any "relatives" of sort, nothing can stop you from broadcasting this awful work of deceit, started over 14 years ago.

Now, before going and delete another comment, stop for a moment and think: was it technically possible in 2001 to fake all this? Wouldn't a Hollywood studio be able to do it, and wouldn't the 5 channels be capable of spreading it live? Wasn't the cause worth the effort? What or who would stop it? Wouldn't fakery be infinietly better than going to the trouble of actually creating indestructible planes capable of flying through steel, and butter towers that would crumble with fire, and controlling thousands of families to keep them quiet or keep their questions fenced within the confines of the main story?﻿

hoi.polloi wrote:Did nobody think to wet a rag and run down the stairwells, which by law must be bordered by fire doors?

well don't forget the incredibly sturdy plane who had just cut multiple steel beams eventually crashing into the stairwells making them unusable. Of course, the sod looking out of the window cannot possibly know that, being the point of impact several floors below. Or else, he had reached down the stairs as far as possible, and, upon finding the plane wreckage obstructing the stairs, had headed back to his own office by now filled with smoke, deciding to hang out of the window until superman comes.

brianv wrote:The longer "videos" like that stay on youtube the better. As each successive years passes the animation looks worse and worse. Give 'em enough rope!

"Wouldn't a Hollywood studio be able to do it, and wouldn't the 5 channels be capable of spreading it live?"

No need for Hollywood. Teens are capable of shite like this in Blender. The whole thing cost about €30 to make.

Well, today, yes... anyway I was referring to designing (and then down-grading) the whole media production, not this single video. The active presence of hollywood in the 9/11 scam is testified among other things by the countless references to it in hollywood movies before and after 9/11. How would these references be explained in any other way?

brianv wrote:The longer "videos" like that stay on youtube the better. As each successive years passes the animation looks worse and worse. Give 'em enough rope!

"Wouldn't a Hollywood studio be able to do it, and wouldn't the 5 channels be capable of spreading it live?"

No need for Hollywood. Teens are capable of shite like this in Blender. The whole thing cost about €30 to make.

Well, today, yes... anyway I was referring to designing (and then down-grading) the whole media production, not this single video. The active presence of hollywood in the 9/11 scam is testified among other things by the countless references to it in hollywood movies before and after 9/11. How would these references be explained in any other way?

Not trying to be awkward here nonho, but then also. Digital cameras of the type used in TV studios then could take a photograph and create a video from it. Costs nothing. Pretends to be actual footage - say a helicopter fly around, while the background is filled in with a Matte. And it was particularly easy for the clowns because, they only had to fill in "sky". It fell apart when they needed to be clever like the Verazzano bridge abortoon. I really suggest people here should have a look at camera mapping techniques, UV unwrapping, texture mapping etc etc. It might help make sense of the archive "images".

Both your comment and Simon's didn't show up on my end. Either youtube is using "ghosting", where your comments can be seen by yourself and no-one else, or the comments are being deleted quickly after.

nonhocapito wrote:7 million views and no comments?? This is virtually impossible. Either this is a fake stat or this "unitedfall" character deletes all comments systematically. Yours was deleted, Simon. I left another one without links, just to see if that's what triggered it. Let's see how long mine lasts...

ancoranonhocapito2 hours ago

Oh, wake up already. THIS IS A DIGITAL CREATION. THE TOWERS WERE EMPTY. NOBODY DIED ON 9/11.

...if these were real people, it would actually be quite offensive and disrespectful to broadcast over and over the last tragic moments of their lives... Real families, real relatives, would have made this clear long ago.However, being these just digital instruments of propaganda, without any "relatives" of sort, nothing can stop you from broadcasting this awful work of deceit, started over 14 years ago.

Now, before going and delete another comment, stop for a moment and think: was it technically possible in 2001 to fake all this? Wouldn't a Hollywood studio be able to do it, and wouldn't the 5 channels be capable of spreading it live? Wasn't the cause worth the effort? What or who would stop it? Wouldn't fakery be infinietly better than going to the trouble of actually creating indestructible planes capable of flying through steel, and butter towers that would crumble with fire, and controlling thousands of families to keep them quiet or keep their questions fenced within the confines of the main story?﻿

brianv: I still think Hollywood was involved, and honestly I don't even see the point of questioning it or putting it aside after all these years of research showing plenty of involvement from hollywood people (from "David Angell" to Buscemi, DeNiro etc etc) which doesn't exclude that they used cheap effects, counting perhaps on the downgrading of quality... Our desire to describe the pigs who did this as cheap and lazy shouldn't blind us to the powerful cone of silence that surrounded the operation, and how it must have involved a lot of powerful people, especially from TV and media. Honestly I think of 9/11 as a media operation first; something that must have been thought of, as a feasible, viable, crazy thing to do, during golf games or parties in L.A. See "wagging the dog", etc.

brianv: I still think Hollywood was involved, and honestly I don't even see the point of questioning it or putting it aside after all these years of research showing plenty of involvement from hollywood people (from "David Angell" to Buscemi, DeNiro etc etc) which doesn't exclude that they used cheap effects, counting perhaps on the downgrading of quality... Our desire to describe the pigs who did this as cheap and lazy shouldn't blind us to the powerful cone of silence that surrounded the operation, and how it must have involved a lot of powerful people, especially from TV and media. Honestly I think of 9/11 as a media operation first; something that must have been thought of, as a feasible, viable, crazy thing to do, during golf games or parties in L.A. See "wagging the dog", etc.

I'm talking about the actual production of the images, not the cabbages. It's possible that it was made in Hollywood...if it was decided to spend millions of dollars trying to make it look like a €30 production. No problemo!

...sorry we're off thread a bit but... it's not about 'cabbaging'... those characters, and all the references in movies, are there to envelope, trademark 9/11 within the world of media... it was Holliwood that worked hard to create the cultural context in which 9/11 could eventually happen. Without the long standing world of make believe manifested by Hollywood, newsmedia and the TV, 9/11 would still be a fairy tale in the minds of the pigs in charge. It was the wizard of OZ, the hollywood magician, who made it happen. As to the quality, it wasn't so shitty in 2001; it was good enough for TV, which was all that was needed. Imagining a group of boys in an army garage is doing them a favor, really, by painting their wide, pluridecennal conspiracy as little more than a rogue CIA operation or something.

nonhocapito wrote:...sorry we're off thread a bit but... it's not about 'cabbaging'... those characters, and all the references in movies, are there to envelope, trademark 9/11 within the world of media... it was Holliwood that worked hard to create the cultural context in which 9/11 could eventually happen. Without the long standing world of make believe manifested by Hollywood, newsmedia and the TV, 9/11 would still be a fairy tale in the minds of the pigs in charge. It was the wizard of OZ, the hollywood magician, who made it happen. As to the quality, it wasn't so shitty in 2001; it was good enough for TV, which was all that was needed. Imagining a group of boys in an army garage is doing them a favor, really, by painting their wide, pluridecennal conspiracy as little more than a rogue CIA operation or something.

Indeed, and apologies! Good enough for TV you say? They have State of the Art Digital Broadcasting equipment and we get this pile of Camera Mapped Matte shite?

That doesn't mean I don't agree with everything you have said regarding the freaskshow.